The Court of Media

I have once written about media’s unfettered freedom in India.

Now, I do not think that unfettered freedom is that good. Media is not comprised of folks who are all super-intelligent, super-educated, super- analytical and simply outstanding human beings. Not at all. On the contrary, most of them are sensationalists and the rest are mere reporters.

While I am not denigrating the importance of a free press in any society, it is critical to rethink the role of the media when they choose to “execute” accused or inflame passions, before the truth is discovered and reported. While it is all good to know what happened in a particular case or scandal, it is also important not to pass any judgements at the “Court of the Media”. The media is not qualified to pass any judgements. Neither can they claim to know everything about every case or every person in every situation. Mostly their information is incomplete. Given that the influence of the media is overblown in our society, it is very important to reassess the role of the media.

The current arguments in the Supreme Court of India about the critical importance of the press bear testimony to the strength of democracy and the independence of the judiciary in India. The very thought of formulating a set of reference guidelines for the media is obviously anathema to the media world, and they are understandably resisting any such thought, notwithstanding any logical arguments in favour of the same. The futility of winning a case against the media is well established, at least in India. The lawyers for powerful media houses and publications will argue till the end of this world how critical it is that the media maintains its independence and neutrality – everyone knows that no media is absolutely independent or neutral.

The question of sullying the reputation of any individual – whether he has public standing or not – is an important consideration before the Court. Why should the media make the conclusion on the integrity of an individual – what right they do have in asserting their position which may not be justified at all – and what recourse the individual has against the concerned media ?

The other important situation is the safety of a victim. The more information is revealed about the situation of the victim, the higher the probability that the victim will be disturbed trying to influence the outcome of the case. The media mostly plays a destructive role in such situations.

While I am not providing any evidence in this post, one is free to make his own judgement by just following the news media. It is evident that media needs to operate within a set of guidelines, and if they cross the boundaries, the Court should have the liberty of passing strictures and exercising their power based on a suitable legislation.

Well, these are my thoughts, and I could easily be challenged, of course. Let us think carefully before hailing the “Court of the Media”, which is not conducted by qualified individuals who can pass judgements on any one and anybody in the society.

Cheers,

Vijay Srinivasan
14th April 2012
Mumbai

Press Freedom in India

I have written about the raucous media in India, which is even more vociferous than what one encounters in the Philippines, for example. The Indian Press is probably the freest in the world, even freer that what one gets in the U.S.

However, what you see on Indian TV is mostly sensational news, sometimes not thoroughly vindicated as the different channels are in a constant race to grab your eyeballs. The Indian media in general, TV or print, is not research-based, focusing more on spot news gathering and indifferent analyses of news developments. Serious matters do not get the same attention as news involving movie stars and entertainment.

The recent commotion in the Indian media about remarks attributed to Justice Katju, Chairman of the Press Council of India, only proves that media folks have very thin skin. Let us look at what Justice Katju said in a recent interview: he responded to a question on how he estimated the Indian press by saying, “Yes, the general rut is very low and I have a poor opinion of most media people. Frankly, I don’t think they have much knowledge of economic theory or political science or literature or philosophy. I don’t think they have studied all this.”

The above is in fact, a mostly true statement, while the manner in which it has been stated may not appear to be correct to the readers. It is not possible for media persons to be experts in various knowledge areas, they are basically collecting news and reporting on the same. There is distinction between ordinary news gatherers and the senior editors who run shows analyzing latest news and developments. However, instead of explaining the differences and nuances in news reporting and analysis, the media responded vitriolically against Justice Katju’s comments and he chose to ignore their reactions.

Both sides appear to have issues. While I tend to agree with Justice Katju that news reporters need to be more intelligent on the matters that they are reporting and that the news channels should focus more on development news rather than on entertainment, it is also his responsibility to engage with the critical Fourth Estate functionaries in the most diligent manner.

Both hands are needed to clap, otherwise we would end up in a potentially tight spot. Taking actions against the media could be construed as exercise of arbitrary powers to control its voice against the government. Media has hit back vigourously against Justice Katju and what can one do about it ? India is a noisy democracy, and it will continue to be so. Maturity and responsibility are in short supply in the country anyway and that fact is reflected in media behaviour as well.

It is time to reconcile and arrive at an amicable code of conduct. The Press Council plays an important role and that should be recognized by the media. India needs Media to ensure that necessary checks and balances are enforced in society and in government, its role cannot be replaced.

India could be the freest place on earth for journalists but they would do well to support the cause of development by educating themselves on the ground realities with suitable knowledge and diplomatic behaviour.

Cheers,

Vijay Srinivasan
5th November 2011
Mumbai

Jack and Jill on HEADLINES TODAY TV News Channel

Courtesy: Shyam, my IIM-B Classmate

Note: I have just written a blog piece about Indian TV News Channels yesterday. I could not resist publishing this one ! Hilarious !!

Here is how the Indian TV news channel HEADLINES TODAY would report the Jack
and Jill nursery rhyme. All names (except those of Jack and Jill), are
fictitious.

Prashant – TV Anchor
Two persons have been injured in a freak climbing accident. Jack and
his companion Jill had gone up a hill to fetch a pail of water when
Jack fell down and broke his crown. Jill came tumbling after. Live
from the hill, our reporter, Amrita Shah, takes up the story.

Amrita Shah
Thank you Prashant. Well, as you say, two persons – Jack and Jill -
had gone up a hill to fetch a pail of water. Suddenly, Jack fell down
and broke his crown and Jill came tumbling after. Prashant.

Prashant
Thank you Amrita. What do we know about the hill?

Amrita
Not too much. Jack was going up the hill to fetch a pail of water when
he fell down and broke his crown. Jill came tumbling after
[Headline appears at the foot of the TV screen: "hill breaks crown of
pail-boy Jack"]

Prashant
What news of Jack and Jill?

Amrita
Prashant, it seems that Jack had gone up the hill to fetch a pail of
water. We know nothing about the pail, or how heavy it was but it
seems that Jack fell down and broke his crown and Jill came tumbling
after. I have here with me, an eyewitness to the accident, Mr Shahid
Trivedi. Mr Shahid, tell us what you saw.

Shahid Trivedi
Jack and Jill went up the hill to fetch a pail of water. Jack fell
down and broke his crown and Jill came tumbling after.
[Headline appears at the foot of the TV screen: "Boy and girl tumble
down hill. Water spilled"]

Amrita
Jack and Jill. What do we know about them? Are they brother and
sister? Are they married? Just what were they doing on the hill
together?

Shahid Trivedi
Jack and Jill went up the hill to fetch a pail of water.

Amrita
And what happened next?

Shahid Trivedi
Jack fell down and broke his crown

Amrita
Go on.

Shahid Trivedi
And Jill came tumbling after.

Amrita
Prashant, there you have it. Two people innocently going about their
business to fetch a pail of water when one of them falls down, breaks
his crown, and the other comes tumbling after. Back to you in the
studio Prashant.
[Headline appears at the foot of the TV screen: "Water errand ends in tragedy"]

Prashant
I have with me in the studio now, Professor Chandrashekar Belagare
from the Indian Institute of Applied Hill Sciences. Professor: a hill;
Jack; Jill; a pail of water. A tragedy waiting to happen?

Professor
Well that depends on the hill, the two persons, the object they were
carrying and the conditions underfoot. Let us look at the evidence so
far.
Jack and Jill
Went up the hill
To fetch a pail of water.
Jack fell down
And broke his crown
And Jill came tumbling after.
Clearly, one would suspect that if Jack’s fall was severe enough to
break his crown then the surface of the hill must have been slippery
or unstable. But I think we’re overlooking something quite fundamental
here. Who was carrying the pail? Jack fell down and broke his crown
and – this is the key – Jill came tumbling after. If Jack and Jill had
been carrying the pail together, would they not have fallen at the
same time? The fact that Jill came tumbling after suggests that Jack
lost his footing first and perhaps knocked Jill over as he slipped.

Prashant
Professor thank you very much. So there we have it, two persons – Jack
and Jill – went up the hill to fetch a pail of water. Jack fell down
and broke his crown and Jill came tumbling after. Later in the
programme, Osama bin Laden killed in Abbotabad, Kanimozhi and Raja
sent to Tihar jail, Shayad Halwa reveals names of ministers, and
Pakistan launches nuclear warheads against key Indian cities. But next
up, join us after the break for a studio discussion about hills, boys
and girls and whether water-fetching trips should be supervised. We’ll
be right back…

Courtesy: Shyam, my IIM-B Classmate

Cheers,

Vijay Srinivasan
7th August 2011
Mumbai

Indian TV News Channels

I spend around 10 to 15 minutes at the most in front of TV, and almost always skim through the news channels, apart from peeking into what is going on in the movie channels.

While the overall coverage of news has surely improved over the past decade, there are a few things that bother me about the news channels in India. These are:

1. Mostly aggressive tone, overstating the news aspect and over-emphasizing the sensational aspects of happenings;
2. Trying to be judgemental about the characters in the news;
3. Throwing open questions that no one has answers for, including probably the person accused in the news;
4. Constantly challenging the wisdom of the newsmakers;
5. Positioning the newsreaders and interviewers and anchor newsman/newswoman as “news makers or news creators, or in plain words destroyers of human beings, or as celebrities par excellence”

Of course, these are my own views, and this is what I feel about news channels. The derivation is that there is no calm and collected analyses of news and happenings, only shrill voices questioning everything around and creating non-stop doubts in the minds of the viewers. Why should I see the news when I can get a more balanced coverage in the news media online ? If the only important agenda is finding fault with everyone, then the mission statement of these channels should be changed accordingly. What a viewer needs is not judgement, he needs bland news reported in a calm voice without a sense of agitation and righteousness that the current crop of news reporters carry with themselves ? Who are they trying to impress ? Are they the only folks concerned about what is going on in this country ?

The assumption of pseudo powers by the Fourth Estate is to be scared about, it is to be worried about. See what is happening to the famous News Corporation. It is the intrusion into the private lives of people which actually creates unpalatable news and sensational news. The only thing to be happy about the Indian TV news channels is that they have not yet started doing what the News of the World did in the U.K., but that is not far off in my opinion. May be that is coming as Gen 2 of the Indian TV channel coverage soon.

While it is all right to question public office holders, the right place for that is the Court of Law. Attempts to malign public servants with whatever information available can only be done with dignity and without threats and challenges. They are not constrained to respond to a TV news channel, which does not have any legal, moral or any other kind of authority. TV channels cannot usurp authority and drag people into mud without having a complete picture, and that too, it is not necessary for anyone to respond.

If I am asked to rank the TV news channels, it would read something like -

A) CNN IBN

B) HEADLINES TODAY

C) TIMES TV

D) NEWS X

E) NDTV

However, not withstanding what I said above, there is some aspects which I do like on these channels. One such thing is the public panel discussion and forum discussion involving politicians (who obviously willingly participate in such sessions, despite the challenges of aggressive and hostile questioning by the anchor person). These discussions are sometimes refreshing and very illuminating on the public policy issues that are plaguing India.

In a nutshell, read your own news online or in newspapers. See TV news channels for some gimmicks and hostility display, and to push yourself to do such questioning yourself – may be one can train oneself to become a news reporter or news anchor ! But nothing much else !!

Enjoy the rest of the weekend without news channels !!!

Cheers,

Vijay Srinivasan
6th August 2011
Mumbai

Media and Morality

There appears to be no relationship between the Fourth Estate and Morality.

Till now, most people would have thought there is absolutely no connection between Politics and Morality. While that continues to be true around the world, the growing power of Media has thrown the spotlight on people who shine the spotlight on others.

I am referring here to the exposure of the phone hacking scandal involving famous media group in the U.K., which does not believe in ethics or morality. Sensational news is worth anything, they will pay thousands of dollars and more to penetrate the lives of even dead victims, like what happened in the U.K. What is amazing is that even the previous prime minister’s phone records were hacked into. And, the current prime minister appears to be close to this same media group, going by various reports.

So, there you go. If Politics and Politicians have no morality (in general), so does the Media and Media Barons. It is OK to violate country’s laws because Media has assumed the “real” powers of the Fourth Estate, which probably in their opinion should be as powerful, if not more powerful than the other branches of the government – the executive, the parliament – and the judiciary. The Media wishes to have the power of blackmailing over the commoner as well.

Does the government and the police have to kowtow to the Media ?

Is this the way to achieve the balance of power in the society ?

Surely not. We have time and again seen the corruption of the Media in India. We have seen some aggressive Media actions in the U.S. as well, denigrating even the President of the U.S. So, it is more than clear that Media has asserted its superiority over the rest of us in an absolute manner, and in somewhat a threatening manner. The Media can bring down any individual or class of people, and there is really no check and balance on Media. They can expose anyone in society at the flick of a switch, it appears.

As we have seen in the recent past, Media is not incorruptible. The NDTV media personality who bankrupted her reputation is still too fresh in memory. There are many such cases. Media is no God. They cannot and should not be allowed to play God. They have no scruples, no morals, no good sense. They want news, any kind of news which can sensationalize the society. They will intrude into anyone’s privacy.

So, let us be careful with the Media. Also, let us not give too much credence to what we see and hear on the Media. The truth is somewhere in between the various media reports. Sometimes the truth is far away from the Media reports. And character assassination has become a habit in the newsmedia in India, so watch out for personal attacks on newsmakers.

In essence, Media and Morality do not see eye to eye. All over the world. And, especially in the U.K. and its old colony, India.

Cheers,

Vijay Srinivasan
17th July 2011
Mumbai

Controlled “Civilized” Internet

I read a news item on the forthcoming G-8 Meet in which there is a planned discussion on “controlling” the internet.

This can only be a French idea, and indeed it is. President Sarkozy, in his infinite wisdom, has decided to control the internet (at least within France for sure with his recently enacted laws), and found that the same ideas might work in the developed world if he can successfully push the levers in the G-8 Meet.

Great, if he can pull it off, but I doubt it.

Let us understand that internet, by its very definition, is a completely public and unregulated media for communication and interaction. No one government, or a group of governments can enforce their will and ideas on the internet.

That would call for a close partnership between governments and the leading internet companies, and a whole host of second-tier yet powerful internet players around the world. That is not going to happen.

It is widely recognized and agreed that there are predators and extortionists present on the world-wide web, and the internet is also used widely for fraudulent purposes. It is also used for digging into your privacy, accessing and publishing personal information, and piracy.

Notwithstanding all of this, the internet is still the only mechanism available today to exchange information, spread information, disseminate knowledge, provide learning opportunities, engage in online transactions eliminating the need for queuing up like in old times, and deliver on the promise of e-commerce. Any government-mandated control will ruin the openness and freedom of the internet.

I am surprised that the French are after regulating the internet – they are the first to formally abolish the monarchy and establish a peoples’ republic !

Governments, in general, are afraid of the internet, as they are yet to fully grasp its power. After seeing what can happen to governments by the force of a Twitter or a Facebook account in the recent Middle East people-driven uprisings, their fear has risen. Also, the revelation of scandals and scandalous politicians in places like London have accentuated the need for a control mechanism which governments can activate as easily as passing an order to stop media publications.

So, all in all, we have to take the French proposals with a heavy pinch of salt. Yes, all of us are concerned seriously and deeply about invasion of privacy and pornography and fraud and piracy. But, is government regulation the best way to control and moderate the internet. I do not think that is the way to go. There are several other options on the table, but unfortunately no government has internet-wise ministers to be able to interact technologically with internet companies and arrive at a solution.

Let us see what happens at the G-8 Meet later this week.

Cheers,

Vijay Srinivasan
25th May 2011
Mumbai

Eliminate the Ads

How about having a TV Channel where you need to opt-in for viewing selected advertisements, instead of having to take all the noise and nonsense of a huge number of ads in the middle of a cricket match ? And, why not pay more for such channels ? It is annoying to be bombarded with ads when one is at the edge of one’s seat, trying to make sense of what just happened in the match.

I do not understand why cricket stars have to endorse products and make money, all this leads to a plethora of meaningless ads. Let us ask whether any star will ever use the product he is endorsing – it is really for the masses who are forced to view these endorsements and be damned. The star and the channel make the money, we only pay and pay.

The timing of the ads in a match is most irritating – when a wicket is down, then they play the ads ; when a four has just been struck, they play the ads ; when a critical moment in the match is approaching, they interrupt and play the ads. Even good ads like the Vodafone ones (which do not have a star endorsement on the TV ad) are annoying when it gets overdone. Well, it is clear that such companies have money to burn on sponsorships and advertisements, no issue with that. But they also have to choose the right moments – especially at the beginning, during drink breaks, in between the two innings, and several other right places : brands should never annoy viewers.

I have a policy of not touching “endorsed” products, I have blogged about this point before. For one, there is no meaning in such endorsements. Secondly, the endorser has more attraction to the viewers than the products being endorsed ; Thirdly, the product price has to be higher than the mean pricing for similar brands, considering the marketing dollars being spent on hugely expensive TV channel air time. Given this combination of factors, any decision is going to be based on “emotional” factors rather than hard core data points, in selecting a product or a brand.

I will go for an ad-free TV channel anytime and am prepared to pay for it. It may be available, but I am yet to experience a completely ad-free TV. Sometimes I feel that movies are better seen at the movie theatres wherein the ads only appear at the beginning and during the intermission, or see movies on the internet. TV movies, like high-octane cricket matches and other event telecasts, are ridden with huge number of ads which sometime go on for as long as 4 to 5 minutes. That’s too much of waste of one’s time, and too much to bear in terms of mostly useless messaging.

Technology is moving fast, and other developed countries have many such options, so it is not going to be too long for ad-free channels to arrive in India. How they will make money is anybody’s guess. Let us wait and see !

Enjoy the World Cup Finals today between India and Sri Lanka at Mumbai………

Cheers,

Vijay Srinivasan
2nd April 2011
Mumbai

Damage to the Fourth Estate

The Fourth Estate a.k.a. the Media is permanently damaged with a badly dented reputation for integrity.

I am referring to the leaked tapes of conversations between powerful people. You can take a look at the Outlook Magazine website and You Tube, should you have the time to listen in on some pretty insipid conversations, but with enough pointers to damage every influential person’s reputation. We have seen careers go down in the Government, Politics, Corporate, Banking, and now the Media.

If a lobbyist can have so much impact all across our elite society in New Delhi and around the country, even to the extent of “king-making” – I mean the appointment of ministers to the Central Cabinet, and also have “connections” in the Media to influence stories, then you have guessed it right – our society’s moral barometer has disappeared in total. The concern that I have, is that of any taxpayer. Let me not take the moral high ground, like many people have done. The issue is the impact that all this lobbying has had on government’s coffers, as well as on Corporate coffers.

While it is not apparent, this is what lobbyists in Washington, D.C., have been doing for ages – divert business to Corporates, especially in the defence segment, influence the thinking on the Capitol, push for corporate-friendly legislation especially in the so-called “bad” industries, push the agenda of a specific Senator, et al. So, for any American, all this is normal “dirty” business in Washington.

But, in India ? Lobbying is not as widespread in India, the lobbying efforts are mostly undertaken directly to propel oneself into stardom with the decision-makers in most cases. Most Chief Ministers drive their own parochial agenda to their own benefit. So, it is truly surprising that a one-woman army has effectively created a lobbying industry from nowhere and has achieved super-human proportions just in a span of a few years at the most. Truly amazing.

Well, the point here is that how could the self-righteous Indian Media be impacted by lobbying ? These are the folks who have successfully unearthed such scams in the past and even in the recent past. How could they let their media be influenced by lobbying, going against the very roots of ethical journalism ? How could a senior journalist of repute, could even indulge the lobbyist and promise to talk to someone in the government ?

I am not naming names, but it is clear for everyone to see for themselves the extent to which journalism can go to pander to lobbying. Even some famous editors have been caught on tape. The mystery remains – who leaked such sensitive tapes ? Very damaging content, which could break relationships permanently and could even lead to electoral defeats in the months and years to come by. The Opposition Parties are not going to give up – they might even “translate” these tapes to Hindi language and circulate !

Let the Media Publishers and Owners take a very hard look at their own houses first. I am surprised there is no public reprimand of the journalists and editors who were caught on tape so far, and I am also rather surprised that there has been some kind of TV silence after the leak of the “media” tapes.

Time to clean up the act and regain lost confidence and reputation. I have stopped looking at NDTV or reading India Today ! But Outlook is surely in my radar !!

Cheers,

Vijay Srinivasan
18th December 2010
Mumbai

The damage of Wikileaks

I am sure many of my friends are going to be disappointed with me for my views on Wikileaks, but as I have always said these views are my own assessments of evolving geo-political and economic affairs and not influenced by what I read in newspapers or see in the television. If Freedom of Information is used to justify the exposes on Wikileaks, I am absolutely sure that all views will be respected, whether these favour the freedom or not. That is what we call “freedom” anyway.

So with that prelude, you would have guessed what I am going to say. Yes, I do not agree with the release of secret government-related communications by Wikileaks and do not side with Julian Assange. This is not about the integrity or messages of these government embassy cables, but it is about the same privacy issues that many citizens and public activists highlight when it comes to individual to individual communications. When we are entitled to data privacy as citizens of countries (whichever country respects these data privacy laws is what I mean here – not all countries of course), why are we not willing to respect the privacy element of the communications originating from an Ambassador’s Office ?

If we do accept that all people are entitled to privacy of their communications (except when there is a legal warrant against illegal communications or terrorist/crime – related exchanges), then government officials are equally entitled to their privacy, all the more so when the nature of these communications pertain to the lives of people and soldiers fighting wars. The reason why a government has a diplomatic handling of such communications instead of a public exchange of emails or cables is to ensure that things go well, and for the reason a common man like Julian Assange cannot conceivably determine the nature or impact of such matters. It is beyond him, and for that matter, beyond most of us.

At the end of the day, as citizens of this world, we wish that our governments conduct themselves in an appropriate, diplomatic and smooth manner, so that we all don’t go to war with each other. Or do we ? Let us be clear. The specialty and niceties of diplomacy are beyond most of us, and it is better we leave that to the diplomats. Obviously what a diplomat feels about certain happenings in a country in which he is posted, are important both to the country to which he belongs and to the country of his posting – no doubt. And, that is why spies exist in the first place to ferret out such information. However, the rationale breaks down when someone in the public domain, like a media or a website, or even a private citizen, dares to get into such intricacies in which he has no business to be in.

Well, I might or might not sound convincing here, but I do not agree with what Julian Assange has done via his Wikileaks exposures, which would have long-term consequences to diplomatic relations between countries and cause damages beyond his wildest imagination. If people are targeted and start to die because of these revelations, then whatever Julian did is unpardonable. It is like the terrorists claiming that they are massacring people because they are fighting for a cause. No cause should demand that kind of behaviour. So, I do not think that Mr Assange understands the implications and the far-reaching impact of his leaks. He is not a diplomat, he is not really a media person, he is just an ordinary Australian citizen out looking for some kind of thrill.

Let me conclude stating that this irresponsible act of leaking confidential government communications would lead to more such acts around the world and so the countries impacted (and others who are not as well) would start to impose new regulations and rules which would stymie the free press and the world. That won’t do anyone any good. Neither is anyone going to benefit from diplomacy turning bad amongst countries. What is Mr Assange trying to achieve ?

I may not toe the line of most folks on this matter, but these are justifiable views and reasons in my opinion.

Why disturb the delicate diplomatic equilibrium which has been serving its cause all these years – good or bad, it has worked across countries and at the United Nations.

Have a great Sunday,

Cheers,

Vijay Srinivasan
12th December 2010
Mumbai

The Great Indian TV Corruption

Well, here I am not talking about the corruption scandals unearthed by India’s famously intrusive and investigative TV channels – the CommonWealth Games Scandal, or the 2G Mobile Spectrum Allocation Scandal, or the Mumbai Adarsh Society Defence Land Allocation Scandal, and countless other sensational scandals which they seem to be routinely breaking open.

I am talking about the deterioration in the quality of the programs which the common population watches day in and day out ; the effect that foul TV language is having on the children ; the alienation of the educated adults who are getting put off by risqué programs which cross the limits of propriety on prime time TV broadcasts ; and, the needless aggression of famous anchors on TV whose modus operandi seems to be adopted from a Tim Sebastian !

Please do not get me wrong. The media, as the “Fourth Estate” after the Parliament, the Judiciary and the Executive, is surely needed, especially in a raucous democracy such as India, to create a much-needed check and balance on the politics of corruption. I am, in no way, denigrating their importance and their need in our civil society.

But, I do have serious reservations. The same TV channels do not investigate the corruption which clearly does exist in real estate, mafia underground, and film world. What about education and the corruption that higher educational institutes have so religiously instituted while accepting “donations” to admit less than qualified students, thereby diluting the standards of higher education in this country ? What about religious corruption ? Politics is not the only area that they should focus upon.

I also seriously contest their “copy the West” philosophy. Why can’t India have its own philosophy in investigative journalism ? And, why news channels have some programs not compatible with their status as “true beacons of democracy” in this country ? It is important to respect the people who are slandered mercilessly, unless proven otherwise.

Most of all, it is the corruption of the minds of young children and teenagers which worries me. We have some totally stupid “reality show” programs, which are supposed to actually delink reality from the fancy world of films and TV shows. Are these really “reality” shows ? Men and Women are not just dominated by sex, there are other things which they do, and 95% of time is not spent on love and sex. Children get affected because the whole family seems to be enchanted by such shows. The adults speak about these shows. The newspapers reveal a lot because there is an anticipated censorship brewing, which has been temporarily suspended by the High Court recently.

Well, well, democracy is OK, but also not OK. When the Fourth Estate could run roughshod over decency and respect for privacy, what can we do – SWITCH THE CHANNELS, or SWITCH OFF THE IDIOT BOX. Yes, that is what we do at home. TV robs a family of quality family discussion time, a time to engage in other pursuits such a game of Scrabble, or Chess. A family cannot see TV for more than an hour a day, unless it is the National Geographic Channel with some great wildlife program, etc., or a great movie classic which the entire family would love to see during the weekend.

Now, I am losing interest in the sensationalism of the Indian News Channels, as there is no depth, rather it is a superficial coverage of the facts and events, with no detailed analysis. The analysis is provided in a group discussion anchored by a rather intimidating and “intervening” kind of anchor, not one who would wait patiently to let one complete his viewpoint on a topic of national “scandalous” interest. Are anchors becoming “god men” – I mean god like people, who wield huge influence and indirectly influence matters in the public domain ? It is becoming like that in India these days.

Well, avoid the TV whenever you can.

Cheers,

Vijay Srinivasan
21st November 2010
Mumbai